It's only amid the gutless miniature poodles who make up the Senate Democratic caucus that Holy Joe Lieberman can feel like a big man

Holy Joe (I-CT, center) is laughing because he's having the time of his life, and poor old John Warner (R-VA, right) is probably happy just to remember his name. Which leaves John Kerry (D-MA, left) -- why isn't he spitting in Holy Joe's face? Or giving him a wedgie? Or something?

"Granted anonymity, Senate Democrats whisper that Lieberman's day of reckoning could come next year if Obama wins the White House and Democrats expand their majority enough that they could risk his departure. Under that scenario, several suggested, his chairmanship would at least be contested."

--from Paul Kane's report in today's Washington Post, "Lieberman Savoring Life on Both Sides of the Aisle"

In his short time on the Washington Post political beat, Paul Kane has impressed me as a major upgrade from the paper's usual "go along to get along" flacks. So the milquetoast flavor of his update today on Joe Lieberman's standing among Senate Democrats has less to do, I think, with the usual infotainment-media indulgence toward Holy Joe than with the general stoogitude of His Holiness's Democratic colleagues, who should be treating him like the turncoat he is.

I mean, look at the most onerous foreboding the gutless wusses can conjure up, even under shield of anonymity, as quoted above. Why, if the Democrats pick up enough Senate seats in November, "Lieberman's day of reckoning could come next year." Why, "his [committee] chairmanship would at least be contested." Oh horror! Some far-left Democratic meanies might contest Holy Joe's chairmanship! I'll bet that's got the unprincipled turd shaking in his boots.

Otherwise, we learn that "Lieberman's outspoken advocacy for John McCain's GOP presidential candidacy crossed a line this week, prompting Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) to corral the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee into pointed face-to-face discussions." We hear whispers of a "grievance list some party regulars are compiling on Lieberman." There is, of course, the specter of Holy Joe doing a Zell Miller at the Republican National Convention. But mostly the Senate Dems, if they even think ill of the turncoat, stifle themselves.

Not so His Holiness:

"I'm going to do everything I can to help [McCranky] get elected. I'm going to do it my way," Lieberman said of McCain in an interview yesterday. "But there will be times when I'll comment, in fairness, on Senator Obama's positions."

"But"? "But"? What does he mean, "but"?

I'm going to do everything in my power to get McCranky elected, but there will be times when I rip the shit out of Senator Obama? Huh???

Officially, Senate Democrats still profess fear of losing Holy Joe's vote, thereby ceding control of the Senate to the Republicans. As if the Senate isn't already controlled by the Republicans?

The only meaningful change would be turning all those committee chairmanships back to the old gang of Bush rubber stamps. But at this point is there really any hope that any meaningful oversight can be achieved, even by as earnest an overseer as Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy? Is there any opening toward honest and accountable government going on anywhere in the Senate which the Republicans haven't already shut down?

The smug pus pile is clearly having the time of his life, feeling like a big shot.

He said "the post-2006 chapter of my life" has freed him from "tribal partisanship." . . .

"Being elected as an independent has encouraged me to do more what is right, rather than worrying about what it means politically in two years or four years," he said.

That has left him free to move from one end of the political spectrum to another, sometimes within a few minutes, joining conservatives on foreign policy votes and liberals on social issues. . . .

He said he will continue to "do what I think is right on each issue," regardless of the consequences next year within the Democratic caucus.

"I remain a Democrat for reasons of principle," he said. "I've been a lifelong Democrat, so I have no desire to leave the party."

The only bright note in the whole sorry mess -- unless you count Majority Leader Harry Reid saying, "We'll let the future decide what it's going to be, but I'm not about to threaten anybody at this point" (way to go out on a limb, Harry!) -- is the much-publicized skirmish this week between Senators Lieberman and Obama:

Obama took matters into his own hands on Wednesday when he made a rare appearance on the floor to vote for the Democratic budget bill. Lieberman sought out Obama, patted him on the back and shook his hand.

Obama guided Lieberman to a corner of the chamber, where for three minutes they engaged in an animated conversation that had other senators gawking. No voices were raised, but several times Obama gently put his hand on Lieberman's shoulder, and Lieberman more than once pointed his finger back at Obama.

When it ended, realizing that reporters were leaning over the balcony of the Senate press gallery to watch, Obama put his left arm around Lieberman and the two walked away, smiling.

Lieberman recounted that he began the conversation by telling Obama "I'm proud of you," but he declined to go into detail. "The rest was politics. It started warmly and it ended warmly," he said.

Obama declined to address the discussion, telling reporters Wednesday that it was just about "politics." But his most ardent supporters were happy he went straight after Lieberman.

"I think that was the way it should be -- talk it over with him in terms of what he's going to do and what his role's going to be," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).

I'd like to think Senator Obama's conversation may have been a tad more pointed than that, that he may in fact have been pointing out to the little weasel that he may be screwing around with the next president of the United States. And communicating that come January, it will all be remembered, and all taken personally.

#